Appeal No. 2004-1520 Page 5
Application No. 09/957,058
description of other concepts or structures. Nor do the references need to expressly
articulate the reason, suggestion, or motivation for making the combination for there to
be a prima facie case of obviousness. The reason, suggestion, or motivation may “come
from knowledge of those skilled in the art that certain references, or disclosures in the
references, are known to be of special interest or importance in the particular field. It
may also come from the nature of a problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to
references relating to possible solutions to that problem.” Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great
Lakes Plastics, Inc., 73 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir.
1996)(citations omitted).
The Examiner has provided a sound basis, originating in the prior art, which
supports a conclusion of obviousness. Berfield and Howard both disclose movable
objects or carriers with a combination of large back wheels and one or two smaller front
eccentric wheels in accordance with the requirements of the claims. Of that there is no
real question (Brief and Reply Brief in their entirety). Howard further describes using
legs 14 to support the carrier or alternatively using small wheels 71 (Howard, col. 5, ll.
45-55 and col. 7, ll. 25-30). Howard expressly indicates that the use of front wheels has
an advantage in that the wheel configuration provides a construction that is freely
movable, very easy to steer, and which is safe and stable (Howard, col. 7, ll. 25-46). The
use of such wheel configurations on other carriers which have to be moved from place to
place, such as golf bags, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007